GDT: Group C • May 2 • United States 4, Norway 2
- Thread starter Systemfel
- Start date
- Status
AwesomePanthers
Maybe next season
- Aug 20, 2009
- 10,296
- 128
You judge a game after the shotcount?
USA had lots of shots from pretty far away without traffic. Those are easy saves for a goaltender.
NotABadPeriod
ForFriendshipDikembe
- Oct 28, 2006
- 52,025
- 8,658
Yeah, id have an even better argument then i agree.
Fact is we got two bad penalties and your guys scored on both of them.
Thats alright though, its not the first time the bigger team get help from the refs and we should be used to it by now, haha
CutOnDime97
Too Showman
- Mar 29, 2008
- 15,589
- 9,786
It was a deserved win for USA, but they dident need to get the three extra soft penaltys.
diving belongs in swimming not hockey
diving belongs in swimming not hockey
CutOnDime97
Too Showman
- Mar 29, 2008
- 15,589
- 9,786
Dagh
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2007
- 722
- 0
I'm Norwegian and I can't say we lost this because of the refs. They called the game as well as I expect a game of hockey to be called. The trip at the end there looked like he could have been called for a trip himself, if the Norwegian player wanted to sell it, but *shrug*, these things happen. Norway had looked like the lesser team for at least a period by then. They seemed to lack the energy they had in the Sweden game, or the US just outplayed them. **** happens. Hopefully they'll pull a win in their next game.
disrespectful
Registered User
You judge a game after the shotcount?
USA had lots of shots from pretty far away without traffic. Those are easy saves for a goaltender.
You might want to take a look at puck possesion and time in the offensive zone too. You watched the same game as we did, didn't you?
Chopping away at the goalie's hands after the whistle is usually a penalty, you dont agree?
AwesomePanthers
Maybe next season
- Aug 20, 2009
- 10,296
- 128
The point being that stats doesn't always reflect a game. He used shots as an argument, so that's what I responded to.
http://www.iihf.com/channels-11/iihf-world-championship-wc11/statistics.html
For all your WC statistical needs.
Nice win! Skille with the gtg, awesome!
Still, Norway played very well through two, especially in the first. Was impressed with them.
Still, Norway played very well through two, especially in the first. Was impressed with them.
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
yea that argument there, is void
norway clearly tried to play defense in 2-3 period, wich is something any sensible team would do in that position, but with the ammount of soft peanltys, norway dident have the players to complete it.
ScottyK
Hi, I'm mat.
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 35,056
- 21,767
It simply wasn't a chop, or a slash. It was a prod, or at most a poke. And it was at the whistle.
That kind of stuff happens 10, 20 times a game in the NHL playoffs without a single call.
I know the rules are different, but i'm not a huge fan of the call.
Systemfel
<b><i>Hockey Talk by Country</b></i>
) some information in the second post of the GDT.
TollefsenFan
Registered User
clearly norway only lost because we dove....
Haha, not saying that. The US is a better team, have better players, and most Norwegian expected to lose the game just like we expected to lose against Sweden.
But if you cannot admit some of those penalties were bad calls you need to clean your USA-glasses
clearly norway only lost because we dove....
Don't think so but I'd rather lose, which is pretty much given, than have guys making their best effort to make it in the Italian soccer team.
That's just me though.
clearly norway only lost because we dove....
No, we only lost, because there are more rinks in Canada, than there is players in Norway.
Also the population thing: 50-1?
Don't you think you should have won without diving?
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: HURRICANES AT ISLANDERS, BEAT THEY ASS INTO NEXT SEASON EDITION- Latest: 3CanesInTheBox
-
-
